FBI Forensic Analysts under Investigation for Falsifying Tests

Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Donald Eugene Gates (AP Photo/Matt York)

Faulty, and in some cases falsified, forensic work by FBI experts has raised questions about the validity of 100 criminal cases in the District of Columbia since the mid-1970s.

A legal review was launched earlier this year after a DC court overturned the conviction of Donald E. Gates, who served 28 years in prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. FBI analyst Michael Malone, who testified at Gates’ 1981 trial that one of his hairs scientifically matched a hair found on the body of Georgetown student Catherine Schilling, is one of a half dozen forensic specialists whose testimony and work have come under scrutiny.
Patricia Riley, special counsel to U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen Jr., has said her review of other cases has not turned up any indication that more convictions could be thrown out. Riley said her office performed a “preliminary review” of 78 of the cases and found “no misconduct,” according to The Washington Post. Nothing has been said so far about the remaining 22 cases to be reviewed.
Overturning Gates’ conviction as a result of DNA evidence marked the first time the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC had done such a thing.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Suspicions about FBI Analysts Growing (by Keith L. Alexander, Washington Post)
Prosecutor Reflects on Wrongful Conviction in D.C. Killing (by Keith L. Alexander, Washington Post)
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Research Council of the National Academies)


Dean Jackson 14 years ago
The Federal government lie in a criminal investigation? Yep, and not just the FBI. How about the lies NORAD told after 9/11. This is what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about NORAD before and on 9/11: “NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar [unattended radar] or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.”1 As for the actual day of September 11, 2001, the commission report says of NORAD’s radar tracking abilities for flights originating within the United States: “F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.”2 “Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.”3 “NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground.”4 “NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it.”5 Now, this is what NORAD and Popular Mechanics magazine said in 2005 concerning NORAD's monitoring of American airspace on 9/11: "And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says [Major Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD]. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."6 Seems to me that when the Federal government is telling the truth, now that is unusual! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf, Page 18. 2. Ibid, Page 20. 3. Ibid, Page 27. 4. Ibid, Page 30. 5. Ibid, Page 28. 6. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org Washington, DC

Leave a comment